MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER). -Sardar Ali, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, No. 232-L has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Inspector---General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 12-3-1979 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore whereby he was reverted from the rank of Officiating Sub-Inspector to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and the order of the respondent No. 1, dated 16-8-1979 be set aside and he be considered to be in continuance in service in the rank of Officiating Sub-Inspector with all rights of seniority etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted as Officiating Sub-Inspector at Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore, he was reverted vide order dated 12-3-1979 to the substantive rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellant submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, which was rejected on 30-4-1979. He again filed a second representation to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide order dated 16-8-1979. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order is illegal as no departmental proceedings were carried out against him before issuing the said order and .He has been condemned unheard. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the final order impugned in the appeal is dated 16-8-1979 while the present appeal has been filed on 28-4-1982, as such the appeal is barred by time. It has further been argued that the appellant was reverted from an Officiating rank of Sub-Inspector to that of A. S.-I.
Which is not a punishment and he could be reverted to his substantive rank without any proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. The perusal of the appeal shows that the order of the Inspector-General of Police was passed on 16-8-1979 while the appeal has been filed before us on 28-4-1982. Thus the appeal is prima facie barred by time. In his application for condonation of delay, it has been submitted by the appellant that he had been persuing his remedy before the Department, so as he could not file the appeal within the limitation. We are afraid that such like execuse cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, particularly when we have noticed that his last representation placed on record is dated 8-3-1981. Thus, we hold that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time.
5. With regard to the merits of the case, the appellant was promoted as an Officiating Sub- Inspector, and he was holding that rank at the time of his reversion to the substantive rank of A. S.-I.
We have repeatedly held that reversion from an Officiating rank to that of substantive rank is not a punishment and no departmental proceedings are required to be taken against any Police Officer before reverting him to his substantive rank. Thus, the impugned order is unexceptional.
6. In view of the above discussion we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed on merits as well as being barred by time.
There will be no order as to costs.